Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 7168
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Tirumala Devi Eada, J
Ettadi Bajanna – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8321 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Sushanth Reddy
For the Respondents: Akkam Eshwar
Criminal proceedings for encroachment cannot be quashed when there are triable issues and rival contentions regarding the validity of permissions and the actual occurrence of encroachment.
Headnote:The matter involves allegations under Sections 447 and 430 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The accused is alleged to have encroached upon a sub-distributory canal, flattened the area, and used excavated gravel for road construction. The accused contended that the land was part of an approved layout and an existing public road, while the prosecution relied on a panchanama and the subsequent cancellation of the layout permission to establish encroachment. The primary issue is whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed given the conflicting claims regarding land ownership and layout approvals. The court observed that since both parties raise rival contentions over the alleged encroachment and the validity of the layout permission, these issues are triable in nature and cannot be decided in a quash petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial Court provided he is represented by a counsel before the trial Court on every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial Court whenever his presence is required during the course of trial.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of canal encroachment and rival claims on layout approval. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. determination that encroachment claims are triable issues. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. precedents distinguished due to cancellation of layout permission. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. refusal to quash but dispensing with personal attendance. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.541 of 2024 on the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, registered for the offences under Sections 447 and 430 I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (for short, ‘PDPP Act’).
2. Heard Sri R. Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner-accused has encroached the Nizamsagar Sub-Distributory Canal No.82/2/2, which flows behind the Railway Station yard and National Highway road from KM 1.460 to 1.820, flattened it, excavated gravel from the canal boundary and used the gravel for flattening the road. Thus, the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 447 and 430 I.P.C. and Section 3 of PDPP Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner purchased land admeasuring Ac.3-20 cents in Survey Nos.131/4, 133/2 and 133/3 in the name of his wife and has also obtained layout approval from the Regional Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning on 31.07.2018. Similarly, for the land admeasuring Ac.4.95 cents in Survey Nos.131/4, 131/5, 133/1, 133/2 and 133/3, which is owned by the petitioner and his brother, layout was obtained from the Gram Panchayat and the same was approved by the Regional Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, vide proceedings T.L.P.No.34/2018/HRO/H1. He further submitted that the petitioner has never encroached the project canal and has never committed any such act as alleged by respondent No.2-de facto complainant. He further submitted that a clarification from the Executive Engineer-I and CADD, Projects Division, Bodhan, was taken as a precautionary measure since the adjoining land of the petitioner belongs to the Irrigation Department. He further submitted that the road, which was shown as 40 feet approach road on the southern side of the layout was an existing public road in Kotarmoor Village. Thus, the alleged encroached land is an existing road and the petitioner has not committed any offence of criminal trespass. He further submitted that the offence alleged under Section 430 I.P.C. does not get attracted against the petitioner, since the petitoner has not committed any act, which causes diminution of supply of water for agricultural purposes. He further submitted that the petitioner has also not damaged any public property. He therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present C.C. against the petitioner. He relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in State of U.P. v. Raja Ram , 1975 SCC OnLine ALL 287 and the judgment of this Court in J. Ajay Choudhary v. State of Telangana and another , 2023 SCC OnLine TS 590
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the layout permission was cancelled subsequently and the petitioner has challenged the said cancellation proceedings vide W.P.No.5904 of 2019, which is still pending before this Court. He further submitted that the panchanama, dated 29.01.2019, conducted in this regard reveals encroachment of the canal by the petitioner. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. Perused the record.
7. The allegations prima facie point out the offences alleged against the petitioner herein. The contention of the petitioner’s counsel is that the petitioner has obtained the layout permission and hence, he has not committed any act of encroachment. But the cont
